CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
The Bugs Bunny link was great.
Pronoun Trouble!!! That was an awesome 'summation'
Hi Lakey and All.
thanks Dil!
BTW what did you think of the Freezone Free For All or Pierre and Mrs.'s revenge thread?
The Little Thread Which Grew - the Apollo '73 to Everything But
- Thread starter lkwdblds
- Start date
- Status
thanks Dil!
BTW what did you think of the Freezone Free For All or Pierre and Mrs.'s revenge thread?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
Mark,
speaking only for my close riding partners and myself, I always carry wire cutters with me. Some fools just put barbed wire up where we want to ride.
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Mark,
speaking only for my close riding partners and myself, I always carry wire cutters with me. Some fools just put barbed wire up where we want to ride.
Shhhh! Don't tell Feral!
Mark A. Baker
FoTi
Crusader
Mark,
speaking only for my close riding partners and myself, I always carry wire cutters with me. Some fools just put barbed wire up where we want to ride.
What a purdy horse.
CarmeloOrchards
Crusader
His name is Billy. he's a quarter horse. The first picture, that you commented on, is with my daughter's best friend, a Yahoo exec, on board which I took while we were galloping.
This is my daughter and Billy.
RogerB
Crusader
That is a full and honest answer, my man!
Buuuutttt . . . . . it actually did not address nor answer my actual question
Though, I'll tell you for free, I'm in accord with you on what you write regards the Scn scenario as practiced in the last 30 years. Prior to '63 we did get some wonderful gains, but the problem was, and it was known, the tech was in development and so what gains were achieved could not be fully realized on and expanded . . . and the scene was rife with the "ascension-crash-and-burn" phenomena, though this point is not at all understood in the Cof$.
But to my question. It is not limited to "$cn tech."
My question was:
"Hey, Toady, is it true you don't think any tech, any tech at all, is workable??
"I don't think you should try and argue that point with our Buddhist friends."
"I don't think you should try and argue that point with our Buddhist friends."
The reason I raised the question as to any tech and did not limit it to $cn tech, is that many, many folks have been on the search for answers to the truth of their essence as spiritual Beings---the kind of answers they thought $cn might have had---for a very long time. It's been humankind's philosophical/religious search for eons.
And I say this because, even though $cn turned out to be a screw-up and based on the dishonesty of a maniacal, deceitful man, I didn't give up on the search and nor have many other folks who've sampled and walked (or limped) away from $cn.
Hence my fun, yet serious, question to you though now raised differently: Do you think there is any tech anywhere that is workable in the context of advancing humankind's spiritual awareness in the direction of its enlightened ascension?
Rog
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
"Hence my fun, yet serious, question to you though now raised differently: Do you think there is any tech anywhere that is workable in the context of advancing humankind's spiritual awareness in the direction of its enlightened ascension?"
Rog
Dang I did answer your question within the smallish confines scientoology.
Sort like being asking about the joy and beauty of sex and limiting my answer as from the viewpoint of the experience of a preteen boy who has only maturbated.
Nevermind.
Here goes.
I think Mike Goldstein with Idenics has come up with something about 1,000 times faster than scientoology.
Ester Hicks chanelling Abraham is very interesting and helpful.
I Ching
That is my short list of things that I feel are helpful to people that are not expensive, overly time consuming, cult or cult like, or have imposing sets of 'rules' one must follow to be allowed to be a believer/follower.
And no doubf there are MANY other avenues that produce excellent reaults that I am just unaware of at this moment
Rog
Dang I did answer your question within the smallish confines scientoology.
Sort like being asking about the joy and beauty of sex and limiting my answer as from the viewpoint of the experience of a preteen boy who has only maturbated.
Nevermind.
Here goes.
I think Mike Goldstein with Idenics has come up with something about 1,000 times faster than scientoology.
Ester Hicks chanelling Abraham is very interesting and helpful.
I Ching
That is my short list of things that I feel are helpful to people that are not expensive, overly time consuming, cult or cult like, or have imposing sets of 'rules' one must follow to be allowed to be a believer/follower.
And no doubf there are MANY other avenues that produce excellent reaults that I am just unaware of at this moment
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
Wow!! Good honest exchange between the two of you!
Terrific communication by both of you. Keep it up! I sense that a meeting of the minds may be attainable here. If that happens, it will be a delightful and well needed breakthrough!
Lakey
That is a full and honest answer, my man!
Buuuutttt . . . . . it actually did not address nor answer my actual question
Though, I'll tell you for free, I'm in accord with you on what you write regards the Scn scenario as practiced in the last 30 years. Prior to '63 we did get some wonderful gains, but the problem was, and it was known, the tech was in development and so what gains were achieved could not be fully realized on and expanded . . . and the scene was rife with the "ascension-crash-and-burn" phenomena, though this point is not at all understood in the Cof$.
But to my question. It is not limited to "$cn tech."
My question was:
"Hey, Toady, is it true you don't think any tech, any tech at all, is workable??
"I don't think you should try and argue that point with our Buddhist friends."
The reason I raised the question as to any tech and did not limit it to $cn tech, is that many, many folks have been on the search for answers to the truth of their essence as spiritual Beings---the kind of answers they thought $cn might have had---for a very long time. It's been humankind's philosophical/religious search for eons.
And I say this because, even though $cn turned out to be a screw-up and based on the dishonesty of a maniacal, deceitful man, I didn't give up on the search and nor have many other folks who've sampled and walked (or limped) away from $cn.
Hence my fun, yet serious, question to you though now raised differently: Do you think there is any tech anywhere that is workable in the context of advancing humankind's spiritual awareness in the direction of its enlightened ascension?
Rog
Terrific communication by both of you. Keep it up! I sense that a meeting of the minds may be attainable here. If that happens, it will be a delightful and well needed breakthrough!
Lakey
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Lakey, your compulsion to get in a conversationand comment on the communication between Roger and myself... I can not imagine as to what you could be thinking. Meeting of the minds? Needed breakthrough?
WTF are you talking about ?
Neither Roger or I have ever, to my knowledge, had anything but pleasant conversations. I have long admired the wisdom he shows in his posts.
So, I must ask, what in the world or you trying to act like is happening here?
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
Lakey, you may or may not have noticed that I have refrained from making direct comments to your friend purple haze.
I have my own reasons for that.
You are much more like her than I had previously realize and so you go over into that category of person I've decided not to make any direct comment to about what you say or do or think on a chatboard or in real life.
Enjoy the rest of your life - ( deleted sentence ).
I have my own reasons for that.
You are much more like her than I had previously realize and so you go over into that category of person I've decided not to make any direct comment to about what you say or do or think on a chatboard or in real life.
Enjoy the rest of your life - ( deleted sentence ).
Last edited:
lkwdblds
Crusader
I hadn't noticed that you had refrained from making direct comments to Purple. Thanks for notifying me that you will not be making direct comments to me either. Thanks for telling me that I am more like Purple Haze than you thought. Purple Haze is a fine person with a lot of ability and charisma. I take your remark as a great compliment.
Only yesterday or the day before you were complaining that I had you on "ignore", saying that I was not using my TR's. I took you off of ignore and we have had a couple of really good exchanges. It is funny that at this time when I am seeking your communication, you decided to pull the plug. I appreciate your letting me know that you are pulling the plug on me. I wish you good luck in life as well!
Lakey
lkwdblds
Crusader
Pleasant communication is not a meeting of the minds.
This is an open forum. If you want private dialogue with Roger, send him a PM. I did notice that the two of you have had pleasant conversations. However, pleasant conversations and a meeting of the minds are two different things.
You are definitely a true or total "ex Scientologist". I see Roger as someone who is a bit more moderate in his position on Hubbard and Scientology tech. I can't speak for Roger but that is my opinion after reading his articles for two years and watching his 2009 Freezone videos.
He did speak at the 2009 Freezone convention, you know, and it has been my experience that you and your associates are pretty anti Freezone, correct me if I am wrong.
It just struck me that you and Roger have enough good conversation and openess going on between you that you might have a meeting of the minds.
Here is the sense of the definition I was using for "meeting of the minds":
.......<snip>..........
Agreement, concord, as in The teachers and the headmaster had a meeting of the minds regarding smoking in school . This expression uses meet in the sense of "arrive at mutual agreement," as clergyman Edward B. Pusey did in a letter of 1851: "Devout minds, of every school ... meet at least in this."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.
Cite This Source
I just meant that he, who is an expert on mental and spiritual tech and spoke in front of the Freezone and you who want anything to do with Scientology and Hubbard stamped out may be able to "arrive at mutual agreement". I believe that things such as that are needed and it would be really nice if it occurred between you two. Candy, Terril, Mark, Leon, me and others have been trying to have some type of meeting of the minds with you and your associates and we were not getting anywhere so I thought that if you and Roger set the precedent, it could lead to good things. In fact, it could lead to a breakthrough, the easing of tensions between two factions of exes, here on ESMB.
I was just applauding both of you and encouraging you to step up, if you will, from pleasant conversations up to a meeting of the minds. I meant you no harm, Toady, quite the opposite. I never dreamed in my wildest dreams that you would be offended. I thought you would like the compliment and that is part of the reason I said what I did. Well, if you were annoyed by my comments then I am sorry.
Lakey
This is an open forum. If you want private dialogue with Roger, send him a PM. I did notice that the two of you have had pleasant conversations. However, pleasant conversations and a meeting of the minds are two different things.
You are definitely a true or total "ex Scientologist". I see Roger as someone who is a bit more moderate in his position on Hubbard and Scientology tech. I can't speak for Roger but that is my opinion after reading his articles for two years and watching his 2009 Freezone videos.
He did speak at the 2009 Freezone convention, you know, and it has been my experience that you and your associates are pretty anti Freezone, correct me if I am wrong.
It just struck me that you and Roger have enough good conversation and openess going on between you that you might have a meeting of the minds.
Here is the sense of the definition I was using for "meeting of the minds":
.......<snip>..........
Agreement, concord, as in The teachers and the headmaster had a meeting of the minds regarding smoking in school . This expression uses meet in the sense of "arrive at mutual agreement," as clergyman Edward B. Pusey did in a letter of 1851: "Devout minds, of every school ... meet at least in this."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer.
Copyright © 1997. Published by Houghton Mifflin.
Cite This Source
I just meant that he, who is an expert on mental and spiritual tech and spoke in front of the Freezone and you who want anything to do with Scientology and Hubbard stamped out may be able to "arrive at mutual agreement". I believe that things such as that are needed and it would be really nice if it occurred between you two. Candy, Terril, Mark, Leon, me and others have been trying to have some type of meeting of the minds with you and your associates and we were not getting anywhere so I thought that if you and Roger set the precedent, it could lead to good things. In fact, it could lead to a breakthrough, the easing of tensions between two factions of exes, here on ESMB.
I was just applauding both of you and encouraging you to step up, if you will, from pleasant conversations up to a meeting of the minds. I meant you no harm, Toady, quite the opposite. I never dreamed in my wildest dreams that you would be offended. I thought you would like the compliment and that is part of the reason I said what I did. Well, if you were annoyed by my comments then I am sorry.
Lakey
RogerB
Crusader
That's good to hear, Toady.
I like it that good folks have not totally given up on their search for truth or the recognition of answers where they lay.
The answers exist, but not anywhere near a proper and full nature in $cn. That avenue is a misdirect!
Now I'll be able to enjoy your humor even more! For I'd have hated to be stuck with the idea that you were totally shit negative!
Rog
Rog
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
Just to clarify the point, Roger spoke at the convention at my request and at the invitation of the convention organizer. The convention was billed as 'Freezone & Friends' and was not limited to professed members of the freezone. The topic of Roger's talk were the key aspects of tech he saw as missing from Hubbard's development of 'standard tech'. His talk was highly illuminating and produced a lot of interest & insight among the participants.
Mark A. Baker
Auditor's Toad
Clear as Mud
RogThat's good to hear, Toady.
I like it that good folks have not totally given up on their search for truth or the recognition of answers where they lay.
The answers exist, but not anywhere near a proper and full nature in $cn. That avenue is a misdirect!
Now I'll be able to enjoy your humor even more! For I'd have hated to be stuck with the idea that you were totally shit negative!
Rog
Gee, I never thought there was any great schism between you and I until I was told - by someone else - there was. LOL ! I'd missed, hope you had, too !
I am far from overall 'totally shit negative'. Perhaps that is a fair description of my feeling about people who try to convince other people that $cn is the only way.
Contrary to what some people would like think I am not opposed to former $cn to continuing to pursue whatever they have chosen to pursue.
Nor am I opposed to people who offer help. I know people who " audit in the field outside the $os " I have named people by name that are in the field that I feel are very good at what they are doing and then read here that I'm "100% opposed to the FreeZone " It is not true, but I expect to see it posted over and over and over again just as it has been
I've plainly stated what I'm opposed to and I've no doubt some 98% of the posters and lurkers on this board know what that is.
Roger, I think you know I consider you one of the very best and most informative posters on this board and hope we continue to trade friendly posts.
Toady.
PS : What is called when a non-scientoologist decides to "disconnect" from a scientooligist?
Mark A. Baker
Sponsor
...
Nor am I opposed to people who offer help. I know people who " audit in the field outside the $os " I have named people by name that are in the field that I feel are very good at what they are doing and then read here that I'm "100% opposed to the FreeZone " It is not true, but I expect to see it posted over and over and over again just as it has been
If it's any consolation, Toad, I'm routinely vilified for 'supporting & promoting LRH'. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Disconnection.
The better question is what is meant by a scientologist/non-scientologist? Everyone on this board is an 'ex', whether they still practice some/all aspects of the tech, or whether they supposedly eschew 'all' aspects of the tech.
Although frankly I personally do not believe there are ANY ex-scientologists who have abandoned ALL aspects of scientology tech & practice.
Some have managed to convince themselves that what they do keep is 'present somewhere else' therefore it isn't scientology. People choose to believe what they want to believe, and assert based on their beliefs.
My view is, whatever individual orientations & whatever schools we as individuals may currently choose to acknowledge, all ex-scientologists continue to use scientology tech to some degree, although they aren't all equally comfortable acknowledging that to themselves.
Thus the differences between us are not 'absolutes', but ones of degree.
Mark A. Baker
RogerB
Crusader
Lakey, My Dear,
I think I must be a little explicit here
In simple terms, you've missed the subtlety of nuance, the shades of gray, and the exhibition of good manners a statesman must use when a guest in the house of a host.
1) I am a total, absolute and complete ex-$scn. So, as with the label you have for Toady being "definitely a true or total "ex Scientologist" . . . stick it on me too!
2) I would say it is imprecise to say that I am "a bit more moderate in his (my) position on Hubbard and Scientology tech." There is nothing moderate about my position regarding Hubbard and the $cn Tech. I've stated and demonstrated clearly that he was a fraud and evilly intended! Ya can't be more direct than that! And I've stated and demonstrated there are colossal and tragic errors and incompletions in his "tech." Ya can't get more direct than that. It's also true I noted those items of tech that have some workability and use. If one is to be factual, one must acknowledge that.
3) And yes, I was invited to and presented at the FZ conference. That does not make me a FreeZoner . . . though it makes me a guest of them. And as a guest, I am not so rude as to offend my hosts by trashing their beliefs. If one really looks at my presentation, you'll note I did a deconstruct of $cn tech, pointing out its errors and areas where advancement and correction to it have been made by others. But if you listen to the presentation carefully, you'll hear there is a point of abrupt editing
It is the point where I mentioned the unholiest of unholies . . . that "Hubbard had his flaws" (the words I used) . . . the edited clip comes back to me carrying on to say that "Bless his heart, without him, I'd have probably ended up either as a drunken bum on the beaches of Sydney, or in jail!" 
So, I write the above in order that no one is unclear as to my position re $cn tech and Hubbard.
What is moderate about me is my dealing with others on the issues and my mode of discussing them with others.
The thing one must remember is that people come to the conclusions they have about things/issues/people/subjects based on their experience and perceptions (though some such can be given by others to them). . . . and it is both pointless and extreme rudeness to counter them and say they are wrong in this. That is the way to conflict and eventual severance of amity.
One can only ever really present them with additional or alternative information/experience/perception such that they can come to greater wisdom by exercise of their own volition.
So, Lakey, the "moderateness" you see of my attitude as being toward Hubbard and $cn is not so. What of it is crap, evil and bad is crap, evil and bad; and what of it is workable and of value is workable and of value. Them's the simple facts.
My moderateness is in my mode of relaying my views to others . . . that is, in my relationships with others on these issues . . . . well, there's always the occasional idiot who wants to try a destructive put-down of me personally, I can get snarly and snappy back at them: but that's toward the attack on me personally, not on the issue being communicated about. Two quite different issues and subjects.
Oh, yes, the other thing while I'm pounding the keys
Toady and I always have had a lot of fun together and true understanding of where each is at and coming from etc. There is no "when we might have a meeting of the minds" . . . we're there already! The scenario isn't that we, as you wrote: "may be able to "arrive at mutual agreement". I believe that things such as that are needed and it would be really nice if it occurred between you two." We're already there!
You see, we're having fun with our little differences of view and position based on our experiences. I totally understand and honor Toady's position, and I'm not trying to "correct it" or change it
That last exchanges between Toady and me was a questioning of him to elicit points of higher understanding between us . . . note those words elicit points of higher understanding between us . . . . it had nothing to do with coming to anything.
Rog
Terril park
Sponsor
Got it.
However most of your posts are derogatory of scn tech.
However you, and for that matter Alan, have stood on the shoulders of LRH.
Despite his many flaws.
Maybe as an experiment talk of where LRH had some good ideas?
May be interesting for some.
- Status